yetanotherguyinline
01-18 09:17 PM
^^^^
dkjariwala
03-30 08:36 PM
Awesome. Congratulations and enjoy!
english_august
07-18 09:27 AM
And that is the reason why I am saying that this is but a small step in the right direction. It is nowhere near the long term solution that we need to work for. In your euphoria, please don't forget that we have a long struggle in front of us and Immigration Voice needs all the support that you can give.
Remember that IV is the only organization that gives voice to skilled, legal immigrants - please help make it stronger.
See below:
Taken from www.immigration-law.com (http://www.immigration-law.com)
07/18/2007: Reinstatement of Original July Visa Bulletin and Uncertain Impact on Pre-July "Tagged" EB-485 Applications and Processing Time of I-485 Applications in the Future
The other EB-485 waiters will turn out to be a big victim to the DOS/USCIS decision yesterday. Since there will be no visa numbers available until October 1, 2007, the people whose EB-485 applications were "not tagged" before July 1 will experience a tremendous delay in obtaining the green card. When it comes to the delays in obtaining the green card approvals, the new filers in July and those filers before August 17 will also witness a tremendous delays and will have to endure a long and long journey to leave the pipeline of the green card process. Why? As we reported quite earlier in this visa fiasco, we even estimated that approximately 750,000 individual EB-485 applications can be poured into the system during this unusual period of visa number availability as affected by the upcoming filing fee increases and more importantantly the anticipated potential huge visa number retrogression ahead during when they may not be able to file their 485 applications because of the retrogression. After all, the system has only 140,000 numbers for the entire EB categories for each year. Go figure! What would look like the waiting time for the current EB-485 filers and the current EB-485 filers before July 1, 2007!
Remember that IV is the only organization that gives voice to skilled, legal immigrants - please help make it stronger.
See below:
Taken from www.immigration-law.com (http://www.immigration-law.com)
07/18/2007: Reinstatement of Original July Visa Bulletin and Uncertain Impact on Pre-July "Tagged" EB-485 Applications and Processing Time of I-485 Applications in the Future
The other EB-485 waiters will turn out to be a big victim to the DOS/USCIS decision yesterday. Since there will be no visa numbers available until October 1, 2007, the people whose EB-485 applications were "not tagged" before July 1 will experience a tremendous delay in obtaining the green card. When it comes to the delays in obtaining the green card approvals, the new filers in July and those filers before August 17 will also witness a tremendous delays and will have to endure a long and long journey to leave the pipeline of the green card process. Why? As we reported quite earlier in this visa fiasco, we even estimated that approximately 750,000 individual EB-485 applications can be poured into the system during this unusual period of visa number availability as affected by the upcoming filing fee increases and more importantantly the anticipated potential huge visa number retrogression ahead during when they may not be able to file their 485 applications because of the retrogression. After all, the system has only 140,000 numbers for the entire EB categories for each year. Go figure! What would look like the waiting time for the current EB-485 filers and the current EB-485 filers before July 1, 2007!
mrsr
05-19 11:22 PM
No friend i am planning to do next week
more...
waitingGC
03-14 12:07 PM
.
reddy77
04-12 04:21 PM
Thanks, Even I am thinking the same but just worried, would I also get the copy of RFE??
Don't worry much its more than like going to be a medical RFE.
I had an RFE recently with similar status. See thread....
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24601
Don't worry much its more than like going to be a medical RFE.
I had an RFE recently with similar status. See thread....
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24601
more...
lost_in_migration
05-15 12:38 PM
/\/\
mdforgc
02-17 08:39 PM
Great job, wish u good luck, We will do our stuff in nY/NJ and meet lawmakers here
more...
sheela
07-11 06:08 PM
I am in the same boat. I spoke to my Attorney and she says, it is not an issue. They will ask for finger prints when they start looking at your case.
FP is a definite requirement before AOS is adjudicated. No fp will delay decision. Remember 'low-hanging-fruits' once visa numbers are available
FP is a definite requirement before AOS is adjudicated. No fp will delay decision. Remember 'low-hanging-fruits' once visa numbers are available
sandeep77
03-20 05:53 PM
bump
more...
prem_goel
01-13 06:56 PM
I have the following visa stampings F1(1998 Chennai), H1B(2002 Chennai), F1(2006 Matamaros) and am currently on H1B (not the 2002 company). Am I eligible for stamping in one of the border posts?
thanks
arun
yes i think so since you have one previous h1b stamping from home country. BUT, you should always check the consulate website for latest rules and info.
thanks
arun
yes i think so since you have one previous h1b stamping from home country. BUT, you should always check the consulate website for latest rules and info.
kaisersose
11-30 03:40 PM
They will not approve a derivative case without approving the principal. USCIS does not follow FIFO, so though it is possible they picked up a 485 application from July, the second problem of having a PD available kicks in.
So for this approval to be valid, some IO should have
1. Picked up a July application for processing
2. Ignored the PD requirement
3. Approved the derivative without bothering to first approve the primary.
Three mistakes together is impossible. It is just a data entry error.
So for this approval to be valid, some IO should have
1. Picked up a July application for processing
2. Ignored the PD requirement
3. Approved the derivative without bothering to first approve the primary.
Three mistakes together is impossible. It is just a data entry error.
more...
gclongwaytogo
10-18 03:47 PM
Just thought of starting this thread as i couldn't see any.
July 3rd Filer.
Reciept notice received on October 11th.
Waiting for EAD.
FP Not Done
July 3rd Filer.
Reciept notice received on October 11th.
Waiting for EAD.
FP Not Done
Better_Days
11-02 05:26 PM
bump. Any insight from those who are smarter than me ?
more...
smuggymba
03-07 09:40 AM
I have an approved I-140 from my current US company but there are some discussions of "layoffs" going around and I want to be ready for any scenario.
My question is whether I can retain my PD with an approved I-140:
1.) If the employer hasn't taken any decision to cancel I-140.
2.) If the employer writes to USCIS about cancelling I-140.
Thanks.
My question is whether I can retain my PD with an approved I-140:
1.) If the employer hasn't taken any decision to cancel I-140.
2.) If the employer writes to USCIS about cancelling I-140.
Thanks.
Ann Ruben
06-22 12:10 PM
There are really two questions here. First, are you eligible for unemployment compensation? And second, will applying for unemployment compensation adversely impact your application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident?
The answer to the first question is controlled by the law of the particular state in which you worked and/or reside. In theory, to be eligible one must have worked long enough that an adequate amount of UC insurance was paid into the UC system, AND one must be willing and ABLE to accept new employment. The law varies from state to state with respect to whether someone in your situation qualifies as "ABLE" to accept new employment.
As to the second question, (assuming your I-140 has been approved and your I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days) under the INA, when your PD is reached and your I-485 is adjudicated, you are required to have the intention to take up an offer of permanent full time employment in the same or similar occupation for which your LC was granted. This is a prospective requirement, and your employment status prior to the actual grant of AOS is relevant only to the extent that it supports or undercuts your ability to prove that you have an appropriate offer of full time employment which you intend to take up. There is no requirement that you be employed while you are waiting for your priority date to become current and your I-485 to be adjudicated. However, being unemployed or employed in an entirely unrelated occupation could trigger USCIS to perform a more searching inquiry into the bona fides of the prospective AC21 qualifying job offer and your intention to accept it.
To the best of my knowledge, USCIS is not notified when an AOS applicant applies for UC. Similarly, I am not aware of any cases where an UC claim triggered an RFE. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to act on the assumption that USCIS is aware of UC claims and be well prepared to prove one's intention to take up a bona fide offer of AC 21 qualifying employment once your PD is reached.
The answer to the first question is controlled by the law of the particular state in which you worked and/or reside. In theory, to be eligible one must have worked long enough that an adequate amount of UC insurance was paid into the UC system, AND one must be willing and ABLE to accept new employment. The law varies from state to state with respect to whether someone in your situation qualifies as "ABLE" to accept new employment.
As to the second question, (assuming your I-140 has been approved and your I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days) under the INA, when your PD is reached and your I-485 is adjudicated, you are required to have the intention to take up an offer of permanent full time employment in the same or similar occupation for which your LC was granted. This is a prospective requirement, and your employment status prior to the actual grant of AOS is relevant only to the extent that it supports or undercuts your ability to prove that you have an appropriate offer of full time employment which you intend to take up. There is no requirement that you be employed while you are waiting for your priority date to become current and your I-485 to be adjudicated. However, being unemployed or employed in an entirely unrelated occupation could trigger USCIS to perform a more searching inquiry into the bona fides of the prospective AC21 qualifying job offer and your intention to accept it.
To the best of my knowledge, USCIS is not notified when an AOS applicant applies for UC. Similarly, I am not aware of any cases where an UC claim triggered an RFE. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to act on the assumption that USCIS is aware of UC claims and be well prepared to prove one's intention to take up a bona fide offer of AC 21 qualifying employment once your PD is reached.
more...
walking_dude
12-21 09:35 AM
I wrote an E-mail to ACLU about the plight of Green Card applicants like a month back. I haven't received any replies (yet).
ACLU is a leftist organization. It cares only for the proletariat, and not for the 'elite' earning decent wages. We are all 'fatcat capitalists' who can defend themselves, as per ACLU/leftist thinking.
As a card carrying member of ACLU, all I can say is that I am proud to have the lady at ACLU :)
ACLU is a leftist organization. It cares only for the proletariat, and not for the 'elite' earning decent wages. We are all 'fatcat capitalists' who can defend themselves, as per ACLU/leftist thinking.
As a card carrying member of ACLU, all I can say is that I am proud to have the lady at ACLU :)
anu_t
06-16 01:11 AM
http://grassley.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.View&PressRelease_id=5428
GRASSLEY CONTINUES WORK TO CLOSE H-1B AND L VISA LOOPHOLES
WASHINGTON -- Senators Chuck Grassley and Dick Durbin today continued their quest to ensure that American workers are protected, and that companies who bring in foreign workers are complying with the law.
The Senators today sent a letter to Emilio Gonzalez, the director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, asking more questions about how the agency is addressing fraud and abuse in the H-1B visa program.
Earlier this month, the Senators sent letters to the top 9 foreign-owned companies to determine the companies' usage of H-1B visas. Today's letter comes on the heels of responses received from several of the foreign companies.
"From the responses we've received thus far, it�s evident that American workers are in the minority at these companies. I expect Citizenship and Immigration Services to take a hard look at their recruiting methods to make sure they are complying with the law," Grassley said. "We cannot just increase the annual allocation of visas without understanding how companies are using them."
"We've begun to question how many companies are complying with H-1B visa requirements," Durbin said. "I look forward to hearing back from Director Gonzalez on what the government is doing to enforce the law."
At this time, Grassley and Durbin will not be releasing the information received from the companies.
Here is a copy of the letter to Gonzalez.
June 13, 2007
The Honorable Emilio T. Gonzalez
Director
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20529
Dear Director Gonzalez:
Recently, we asked the foreign-based companies who obtain the most H-1B visas to answer questions regarding their workforce, wages, recruitment efforts, and usage of H-1B visas in the United States. Our letters were intended to learn more about how some companies are using the H-1B visa program. We remain concerned that the H-1B and L visa programs are facilitating the displacement of Americans by cheaper foreign workers. We continue our effort to understand how the H-1B and L visa programs are being used by U.S. and foreign-based companies, and therefore request that you provide details related to these programs.
Under current law, H-1B-dependent employers are required to attest that they have not displaced comparable workers in the United States before hiring a foreign worker. They must also make a good faith effort to recruit Americans first.
The responses to our letters to foreign-based H-1B users have led us to question how many companies are currently defined as H-1B-dependent, and if these employers who depend on H-1B visa holders are being adequately monitored for compliance with H-1B program requirements. While we understand that the Department of Labor has primary jurisdiction over H-1B dependent employers, we would like to understand your agency�s role in ensuring compliance with laws regarding displacement and recruitment.
We have also become concerned about the use of L visas by companies who also use large numbers of H-1B visas. Many companies are allowed to bring in L visa workers through a Ablanket petition,@ which is approved by USCIS. While the blanket petition is meant to simplify the process, we fear that some foreign workers may be approved for visas by the Department of State without proper oversight by USCIS, which has primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with L visa program requirements.
In order to better understand the nature of the L visa program, we need to have access to better statistics. We would like to know how many L visas are approved each year, and what companies use the program. We would also like to know more about the use of the blanket petition for L visa holders, and USCIS=s ability to monitor individual visa holders who are allowed entry into the United States on a blanket petition.
Finally, we are concerned about the level of fraud monitoring of the H-1B and L visa programs. While we understand that the Fraud Detection and National Security unit is analyzing and writing an assessment of the H-1B program, we are concerned that abuse of both programs is not being addressed adequately. Given that the immigration bill before the Senate includes a provision to allow USCIS to divert special funds to other operations, we would like to know how many dollars have been used specifically for H-1B and L fraud efforts. We also seek more details about how these investigations are being handled within the Department.
Given these concerns, we respectfully ask that the following answers be provided to us by Wednesday, June 20, 2007.
H-1B Dependent Employers
$ Please explain the process of identifying employers as H-1B dependent employers pursuant to INA Section 212(n)(3).
$ How many companies are defined by USCIS to be AH-1B dependent@ employers?
$ How are these H-1B dependent employers being monitored, if at all, by USCIS?
Blanket L Visa Petitions
$ How many L visas have been approved each year since 2000?
$ Please provide lists of companies that have used the L visa program for each of the two most recently available years, and how many visas each company has obtained in each year.
$ Since USCIS has primary jurisdiction over blanket petitions and visa policies, what role has been delegated to the Department of State and how is your agency ensuring that aliens under the blanket petition are being properly screened before entering the U.S.?
$ What role, if any, does USCIS play in monitoring the approval of L visas covered by blanket petitions?
$ Please provide an explanation of USCIS=s ability to track individual L visa holders who are allowed entry into the United States on visas covered by a blanket petition.
Investigations of Fraud and Abuse
$ Annually, what has been the total amount of funds deposited into the Fraud Prevention and Detection Account under INA Section 286(v) since it was established? Of this amount, what amount has been provided to the Department of Homeland Security under 286(v)(2)(B)?
$ How have the funds provided pursuant to 286(v)(2)(B) been used in FY2005, FY2006, and thus far in FY2007? How many funds have not been expended in a given year?
$ How does USCIS plan to spend the remaining funds left in FY2007?
$ How many total fraud and abuse referrals have been sent to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the last two years? How many of these referrals, to your knowledge, have been pursued? How many referrals, to your knowledge, are pending? Please provide any further details about specific cases or referrals to ICE that may be helpful to understanding the process within the Department.
$ Please provide examples of recent investigative referrals to ICE dealing with H-1B or L visas. Please explain any referrals in the last two years that have not been pursued or that have been closed, and provide information on how many are currently pending.
While we anticipate your concerns about providing such information to us by Wednesday, June 20th, we must stress the fact that the U.S. Senate is considering comprehensive legislation that would change immigration policies for years to come. The H-1B and L visa programs must be better understood before further action is taken on this bill. We appreciate your cooperation in providing us with input in the next week.
Please contact XXXXXXXX if you have any questions regarding this matter. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator United States Senator
GRASSLEY CONTINUES WORK TO CLOSE H-1B AND L VISA LOOPHOLES
WASHINGTON -- Senators Chuck Grassley and Dick Durbin today continued their quest to ensure that American workers are protected, and that companies who bring in foreign workers are complying with the law.
The Senators today sent a letter to Emilio Gonzalez, the director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, asking more questions about how the agency is addressing fraud and abuse in the H-1B visa program.
Earlier this month, the Senators sent letters to the top 9 foreign-owned companies to determine the companies' usage of H-1B visas. Today's letter comes on the heels of responses received from several of the foreign companies.
"From the responses we've received thus far, it�s evident that American workers are in the minority at these companies. I expect Citizenship and Immigration Services to take a hard look at their recruiting methods to make sure they are complying with the law," Grassley said. "We cannot just increase the annual allocation of visas without understanding how companies are using them."
"We've begun to question how many companies are complying with H-1B visa requirements," Durbin said. "I look forward to hearing back from Director Gonzalez on what the government is doing to enforce the law."
At this time, Grassley and Durbin will not be releasing the information received from the companies.
Here is a copy of the letter to Gonzalez.
June 13, 2007
The Honorable Emilio T. Gonzalez
Director
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20529
Dear Director Gonzalez:
Recently, we asked the foreign-based companies who obtain the most H-1B visas to answer questions regarding their workforce, wages, recruitment efforts, and usage of H-1B visas in the United States. Our letters were intended to learn more about how some companies are using the H-1B visa program. We remain concerned that the H-1B and L visa programs are facilitating the displacement of Americans by cheaper foreign workers. We continue our effort to understand how the H-1B and L visa programs are being used by U.S. and foreign-based companies, and therefore request that you provide details related to these programs.
Under current law, H-1B-dependent employers are required to attest that they have not displaced comparable workers in the United States before hiring a foreign worker. They must also make a good faith effort to recruit Americans first.
The responses to our letters to foreign-based H-1B users have led us to question how many companies are currently defined as H-1B-dependent, and if these employers who depend on H-1B visa holders are being adequately monitored for compliance with H-1B program requirements. While we understand that the Department of Labor has primary jurisdiction over H-1B dependent employers, we would like to understand your agency�s role in ensuring compliance with laws regarding displacement and recruitment.
We have also become concerned about the use of L visas by companies who also use large numbers of H-1B visas. Many companies are allowed to bring in L visa workers through a Ablanket petition,@ which is approved by USCIS. While the blanket petition is meant to simplify the process, we fear that some foreign workers may be approved for visas by the Department of State without proper oversight by USCIS, which has primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with L visa program requirements.
In order to better understand the nature of the L visa program, we need to have access to better statistics. We would like to know how many L visas are approved each year, and what companies use the program. We would also like to know more about the use of the blanket petition for L visa holders, and USCIS=s ability to monitor individual visa holders who are allowed entry into the United States on a blanket petition.
Finally, we are concerned about the level of fraud monitoring of the H-1B and L visa programs. While we understand that the Fraud Detection and National Security unit is analyzing and writing an assessment of the H-1B program, we are concerned that abuse of both programs is not being addressed adequately. Given that the immigration bill before the Senate includes a provision to allow USCIS to divert special funds to other operations, we would like to know how many dollars have been used specifically for H-1B and L fraud efforts. We also seek more details about how these investigations are being handled within the Department.
Given these concerns, we respectfully ask that the following answers be provided to us by Wednesday, June 20, 2007.
H-1B Dependent Employers
$ Please explain the process of identifying employers as H-1B dependent employers pursuant to INA Section 212(n)(3).
$ How many companies are defined by USCIS to be AH-1B dependent@ employers?
$ How are these H-1B dependent employers being monitored, if at all, by USCIS?
Blanket L Visa Petitions
$ How many L visas have been approved each year since 2000?
$ Please provide lists of companies that have used the L visa program for each of the two most recently available years, and how many visas each company has obtained in each year.
$ Since USCIS has primary jurisdiction over blanket petitions and visa policies, what role has been delegated to the Department of State and how is your agency ensuring that aliens under the blanket petition are being properly screened before entering the U.S.?
$ What role, if any, does USCIS play in monitoring the approval of L visas covered by blanket petitions?
$ Please provide an explanation of USCIS=s ability to track individual L visa holders who are allowed entry into the United States on visas covered by a blanket petition.
Investigations of Fraud and Abuse
$ Annually, what has been the total amount of funds deposited into the Fraud Prevention and Detection Account under INA Section 286(v) since it was established? Of this amount, what amount has been provided to the Department of Homeland Security under 286(v)(2)(B)?
$ How have the funds provided pursuant to 286(v)(2)(B) been used in FY2005, FY2006, and thus far in FY2007? How many funds have not been expended in a given year?
$ How does USCIS plan to spend the remaining funds left in FY2007?
$ How many total fraud and abuse referrals have been sent to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the last two years? How many of these referrals, to your knowledge, have been pursued? How many referrals, to your knowledge, are pending? Please provide any further details about specific cases or referrals to ICE that may be helpful to understanding the process within the Department.
$ Please provide examples of recent investigative referrals to ICE dealing with H-1B or L visas. Please explain any referrals in the last two years that have not been pursued or that have been closed, and provide information on how many are currently pending.
While we anticipate your concerns about providing such information to us by Wednesday, June 20th, we must stress the fact that the U.S. Senate is considering comprehensive legislation that would change immigration policies for years to come. The H-1B and L visa programs must be better understood before further action is taken on this bill. We appreciate your cooperation in providing us with input in the next week.
Please contact XXXXXXXX if you have any questions regarding this matter. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator United States Senator
GCplease
08-16 02:33 PM
Thank you guys.
What is bothering me is that they told us the Wrong Information PLUS lawyer was just asking for filling fees(which is 745) during the time of signature but now Company is charging even for legal fees.
I believe they want to earn extra money from us. What should we do now about this wrong info?
You think we have no choice here but to pay?
I'm sorry and thanks for your help.
You really can't do much about it now.
If you wanna fight your employer, you may end getting fired.
So, just bite the bullet and pay.
What is bothering me is that they told us the Wrong Information PLUS lawyer was just asking for filling fees(which is 745) during the time of signature but now Company is charging even for legal fees.
I believe they want to earn extra money from us. What should we do now about this wrong info?
You think we have no choice here but to pay?
I'm sorry and thanks for your help.
You really can't do much about it now.
If you wanna fight your employer, you may end getting fired.
So, just bite the bullet and pay.
pasupuleti
09-06 04:12 PM
Similar question came up during the last immigration attroney conference.I heard attorney say, as long as someone is working for the same company filing for GC should't be a problem.
You can check the transcripts & audio for the conference here..
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1267
You can check the transcripts & audio for the conference here..
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1267
mbartosik
11-09 07:17 PM
The only reason that I can see for not filing yourself, is if company is offering to pay. EAD & AP filing are simple and do not require to be done my employer.
If you think that the lawyer sucks, and you have a good relationship with your bosses, see if they will let you expense the fees and do it yourself. They save the lawyer's fees too that way.
If you think that the lawyer sucks, and you have a good relationship with your bosses, see if they will let you expense the fees and do it yourself. They save the lawyer's fees too that way.
No comments:
Post a Comment